It seems to me unbelievable, that in an age in which the governments of many countries can figure out the exact location of a single individual in order to assassinate them with a drone, we've somehow lost track of something the size of a jet liner, crossing over international borders. I guess we'll know if a nuclear missile is headed out way because the issuing country will give us a warning call? Why is it so hard to pinpoint the exact location of this plane?
Probably headed back to the coast after experiencing difficulties then something incapacitated the crew, until they ran out of fuel over the Indian ocean.
> An Asia-based pilot of a Boeing 777-200, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to reporters, said an ascent above the plane’s service limit of 43,100 feet, along with a depressurized cabin, could have rendered the passengers and crew unconscious, and could be a deliberate maneuver by a pilot or a hijacker.
> Other experts said that altitude changes would be expected if the pilots became disabled after the plane’s autopilot was disengaged. Changes in the weight distribution on the plane as fuel burned off would make the plane descend and climb repeatedly, though changes in course would be harder to explain.
...
> The data, the official said, “leads them to believe that it either ran out of fuel or crashed right before it ran out of fuel.”
> It would take a long runway to land a plane of that size, the official said. Although the radius that the plane could have flown extends into South Asia, the official added, “the idea it could cross into Indian airspace and not get picked up made no sense.”
I have no idea how one would come to your conclusion when there's evidence otherwise, that this was a deliberate action: the climbs, disabling of more than one communication system at different times, course changes, no calls back.
No, the ring is done by the system while it tries to connect with the target phone. If any cell phone on that plane passed in range of any cell phone tower they would have been able to pinpoint the plane's location fairly quickly.
This is an interesting user interface problem. Connecting to a mobile or IP phone can take seconds. As the network operators or phone in question you need to provide feedback that the call is in progress but not ringing at the other end.
Unfortunately there isn't a universal sound for that so you either get silence or a fake ringing. Silence makes people think its broken, whereas ringing gives false hope...
What would be the theory of least effort? By that I mean least people involved, least criminal energy, least planning.
Could a pilot do this completely on his own? Turn off the communication system, fly 4 hours into a different direction and then nosedive into the ocean?
Slow burn fire randomly taking out communications systems and electronics undetected over a long period of time. Pilots freak out and head West for the coast, program way points on autopilot. Fire then cracks the hull, leading to a slow depressurization, incapacitating crew. Plane heads into the Indian ocean with all onboard unconscious or dead, until it runs out of fuel.
this fire just happened to cut out all four radio circuits, both transponders (physically separate systems) before he could squark about it, or contact anyone on the radio? I really doubt that.
If I thought that was possible, I wouldn't fly the little sheds I do for fun.
The thing that bothers me is that the transponder(s) were turned off/failed right at the boundary between Malaysian and Vietnamese air traffic control. Could be a coincidence, but it's also a good location for those of bad intent.
One difficulty in creation of theories about what may have happened to this flight is that it depends what evidence the theory needs to fit, and there is still quite a lot of confusion about what evidence is factual and what evidence has been reported in the media but then denied by authorities.
Major mechanical event involving electrical fire and possible incapacitation of flight crew. Whoever's flying the plane attempts to turn back, correct again after an hour to try and follow where they think the peninsula is, crashes into middle of ocean after running out of fuel.
>Could a pilot do this completely on his own? Turn off the communication system, fly 4 hours into a different direction and then nosedive into the ocean?
Yes.
Egypt Air is an example of a pilot committing suicide, before doing so he pulled the circuit breakers for most systems including some for the flight data recorders (black boxes).
For safety reasons a pilot needs to be able to quickly isolate any system (even ones that are 'vital'). If the pilot wishes to kill everyone, he will, there is no point trying to design against that. However as the vast majority of pilots are frequently making changes to the automated systems idea of the world for the better of the plane.
At the moment on many forums there are a lot of comments from people saying we need to clip the wings, so to speak, of pilots, limit what they can do. These people have never sat on the left.
> For safety reasons a pilot needs to be able to quickly isolate any system (even ones that are 'vital'). If the pilot wishes to kill everyone, he will
This seems like really good news for would-be plane hijackers.
Because taking control of a 60 meter long hunk of aluminum hurtling through the air at 400 mph wasn't already good news? From what I can see it means absolutely nothing to would-be hijackers.
Maybe "hijacker" isn't the right term. I'd just never stopped to think how a pirate, or anyone interested in stealing a plane for whatever reason, could take control of a plane and force the pilot to disable all systems and nobody would ever find the plane again.
Assuming the hijackers had a plan, the closest airstrip that might be disused is on Car Nicobar. The base there was destroyed in the 2004 tsunami and subsequently evacuated. The rest of the island was also devastated, with thousands dead.
If not there, I would guess a landing in a dry lake bed in Tibet is next most likely.
But since there has been no communication, it raises the odds it crashed, either at sea or attempting to land.
The cargo list for this flight has still not been released. The max amount of passengers allowed to board this flight was 50 less than the number of available seats. Suggesting the flight was carrying heavy cargo.
Gold is likely. It is very highly valued in China, as people feel they need to save for retirement, inflation is high, and a lot of the population distrusts available investment opportunities. The Chinese imported nearly 2000 tons of gold last year.
No. Flights are often under booked. The mean load factor in the US is ~80%. The worst thing about conspiracy theorists is that they have no idea what they're talking about. Leave the real conspiracy thinking to the guys who actually know their stuff.
Sometimes I don't know what's worse: conspiracy theorists, or people who matter of factly assume there are "guys who actually know their stuff" AND, if they do exist, are the ones who are actually tasked with meaningful action
Unless you share exactly my specific level of paranoia you are either buying into what ^they^ want you to believe or are a nut case tin-foil hatter ! :-)
I think the parent is saying that the maximum allowed number of passengers was 50 fewer than the # of seats. Meaning that 50 seats were never up for booking.
This is being mentioned on flyertalk. The maximum amount of bookable tickets was 50 less than the actual amount of seats. They had 4 passengers on standby which were only allowed to board after 5 passengers were no shows.
The New York Times, quoting American officials and others familiar with the investigation, said radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military appear to show the airliner climbing to 45,000 feet (about 13,700 meters), higher than a Boeing 777’s approved limit, soon after it disappeared from civilian radar, and making a sharp turn to the west.[1]
If the MH370 suddenly climbed to 45,000 feet that would indicate that either (1) there was a mechanical failure so the pilots had to struggle to take the control again or (2) there was a fight in the cockpit that resulted on the abrupt climb.
My understanding so that the height reached is one of the much more speculative pieces. It's based off the plane pinging a satellite and could easily be off several thousand feet. (Read that earlier)
No I think the height was from the radar, the part you are talking about is the ping reported a drop of 40,000ft in the span of a minute, which didn't make any sense.
The height of 45K is estimated with fairly large error bands. That aircraft couldn't get to 45K with the cargo and fuel it had at the time of the report.
43 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] thread> An Asia-based pilot of a Boeing 777-200, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to reporters, said an ascent above the plane’s service limit of 43,100 feet, along with a depressurized cabin, could have rendered the passengers and crew unconscious, and could be a deliberate maneuver by a pilot or a hijacker.
> Other experts said that altitude changes would be expected if the pilots became disabled after the plane’s autopilot was disengaged. Changes in the weight distribution on the plane as fuel burned off would make the plane descend and climb repeatedly, though changes in course would be harder to explain.
...
> The data, the official said, “leads them to believe that it either ran out of fuel or crashed right before it ran out of fuel.”
> It would take a long runway to land a plane of that size, the official said. Although the radius that the plane could have flown extends into South Asia, the official added, “the idea it could cross into Indian airspace and not get picked up made no sense.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo#List_of_countries_under...
Unfortunately there isn't a universal sound for that so you either get silence or a fake ringing. Silence makes people think its broken, whereas ringing gives false hope...
Could a pilot do this completely on his own? Turn off the communication system, fly 4 hours into a different direction and then nosedive into the ocean?
If I thought that was possible, I wouldn't fly the little sheds I do for fun.
What exactly is known for certain?
The circuit breakers for the ACARS and radar transponder are accessible.
Yes.
Egypt Air is an example of a pilot committing suicide, before doing so he pulled the circuit breakers for most systems including some for the flight data recorders (black boxes).
For safety reasons a pilot needs to be able to quickly isolate any system (even ones that are 'vital'). If the pilot wishes to kill everyone, he will, there is no point trying to design against that. However as the vast majority of pilots are frequently making changes to the automated systems idea of the world for the better of the plane.
At the moment on many forums there are a lot of comments from people saying we need to clip the wings, so to speak, of pilots, limit what they can do. These people have never sat on the left.
This seems like really good news for would-be plane hijackers.
If not there, I would guess a landing in a dry lake bed in Tibet is next most likely.
But since there has been no communication, it raises the odds it crashed, either at sea or attempting to land.
If the MH370 suddenly climbed to 45,000 feet that would indicate that either (1) there was a mechanical failure so the pilots had to struggle to take the control again or (2) there was a fight in the cockpit that resulted on the abrupt climb.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/15/mh370-search-fo...